How will be able to deal with the unemployment, when technology advances?

As having a degree in robotics, I have been quite fascinated by this question for a while.

The advancements of robotics are making it easier and easier to produce and use different machinery to automatically do whatever is needed. Even right
now, technologically we would be able to replace lots of jobs, to estimate, around 60-80%. Any job that does not need creativity or abstract thinking
can potentially be replaced by technology.

The processors are getting faster, sensors better and the automated systems faster, and what is most important of all, cheaper.

3D-printing made it available to print anything at home. With advancements, the materials could become cheaper and printers faster. Soon even clothes
might be "printed out". Logistically, smartcars might some day replace the need for truckdrivers as the truck will be able to go from point A to point
B itself. There will be simply too many technology available to even think of or mention here.

Although such machines do need that much people to deal with them and a huge number of easier jobs will be lost. Yet the population is only growing
and people overally are not becoming that much smarter, if not dumber, which means many people would not be able to acquire the skills do deal with
the complex machines or create them. It would simply be impossible to provide a job for everyone in the automated technological world.

What do you think, how will the future unemployment problems be solved, especially for the uneducated people? Will new jobs be created simply to give
people jobs while knowing that the job would not create any real value and machine can do it faster, better and cheaper? Another way creating jobs
might be adding new laws and standards which would require more lawyers and more control.

I just can not imagine, how such problem could be solved, if the rules of the financial world stayed like they are. The current financial system
would not be able to survive in my opinion.

Like you said, the more dependent we become to technology, the less people will have to think, and the dumber humanity will become(the general
population anyway)

It is a pretty crazy question, because we would really need to move into a new paradigm to survive technology... Maybe a paradigm without money would
be the answer IMHO... You cant keep people trapped in the slavery of working paycheck to paycheck, when the job is replaced by a machine... people
will become more and more homeless because they dont have the almighty dollar... Its a pretty scary thought honestly... no telling what will happen in
the next 15 years unless the general public wakes up to the slavery system we are already living in.

Already, people would rather grow crops digitally instead of taking the time to go outside and breathe some fresh air, and get do something productive
for them or their family... like grow real food you could eat. It amazes me how almost no one grows their own food... but then again when you are
forced to work 2 jobs, working paycheck to paycheck, have 5 kids... I guess you dont have time to spend time in the real world or even use your
brain.

How many people do you think would honestly, willingly plug themselves into the "matrix" if it existed? I would be willing to wager, atleast 1/4 of
the population(US pop anyways)would love to live in a fantasy world and do nothing productive except give off some human body heat..

I really think how people look at money as this technology improves, will be the real telling of what will happen to people... we need to move past
money to exist in any type of free society

ETA: Heres an interesting twist to your question...

How will be able to deal with the unemployment, if/when the US would end the wars and pull our troops home...

I've given this topic a lot of thought over the years. What is clear is that the social contract will break due to technology. It basically already
has, but that's for a different thread.
We will eventually have to decide what seems best for the species. Either we resign the contract under different terms, else allow the elite to
continue to wipe out the lower classes across the globe.

Both will likely happen. I think that the technology will first be used to keep the people in check, providing a shaping up of our species. Those who
are still deemed to be providing under the current social contract, will get the crazy high-tech goodies, while everyone else will be in private
prison centers, or designated public areas for the poor awaiting to die out.

After enough suffering/shaping up, "progress" will swing towards redefining our beliefs, values, and social institutions.
The wild card here is the severity of climate change during this process.
If climate change is moderate to severe, then the first stage will continue on longer, because the utopia which would seem to be afforded by
technological advances, actually can't be realized. In that case, all bets are off.

What is certain is that our current pro-social beliefs are part of the problem, and are creating an unsustainable scenario. Something must be done.
We can't keep mindlessly consuming, and working block schedules, day after day.
The fact is that we're causing too much environmental degradation with our current socio-political paradigm, and eventually a day of reckoning will be
upon us.

Oh too add: I like to try and grasp the rate of tech advancement. It seems that if we consider but one factor, we can generally estimate that the rate
of advancement is ~1,000 fold over the period of a decade

So I think to the calculation of needing approximately 1 exaflop of processing power to raw simulate the human mind.

We are being told that exaflop supercomputers will be here before the end of the decade.
I think India has contracts to set up a system (currently in the process of implementation!) for exaflop computing by 2015, and the US government will
have one by 2018. It will require several megawatts.

Well that means a decade later it will require several kilowatts, and a decade later a few hundred watts. A decade later, and we have the synthesis of
the human mind (or better), taking less volume than our heads, and using about as much power.

That's a linear view of things, and doesn't take into account the fact that MANY projects are being worked on simultaneously in interrelated fields,
that will push these advancements into reality sooner than expected. So we're not only talking about replacing low-skilled jobs, but moderate, to high
level skilled jobs sometime in the next half of this century.

Obviously the technology should be doing more for us, so yes, our labour will be required less. What is needed as we rely on technology more is a
total Change in mindset. With the current mindset of the commercially tamed humanity, I agree we are in real trouble. To keep everyone
working/participating we should all work less hours maybe 2/3 days a week.

The problem is, those in control do not want to loose it, they would sooner see the people suffer than change their system. I think most would be
willing to sacrifice half their job to chill while someone else takes over the latter part of the weeks shifts, so long as the pay is enough to
sustain ourselves comfortably which with global cooperation could be achieved easily.

The people are not going to be the problem through whatever transision we must go through, but will be made out to be the problem, no doubt. Hundreds
of years of conditioning have gone into preparing for this transition, we are sinners, global warming, ect...and I feel agenda21 and the carbon
tax/currency, smart meters ect, is the way the elites plan to use this technology to keep control, and all fits perfectly with the biblical prophecy
of the beast/Antichrist, with the 666/carbon connection, should they be able implement their plans.

It is NOT techonology advances that you should be worried about employment opportunities, BUT RATHER - MONOPOLIES held by those who possesses those
technology, as they buy up competitors in the market, set up barriers to entries and generally cause the free market to end.

Advances in our world is not caused by technology, but rather, free market competition, to set one company to be better than another to win market
share.

We may think that robotics will conquer the world. But in reality, there WILL BE different kinds of robotics in the market place for consumers to
choose from, a wide variety as each company vies for market share, to build their robots with different features.

Microsoft tried to monopolised the software market and failed. There are many other softwares avaliable today, and even apps for handphones.

Apple tried to monopolised the handphone market, and failed. There are many other types of hp and features, with even more radical new changes comming
soon.

ALL these, in a free market, with a level playing field, will ALWAYS ensure that there will be employment for all, as companies either drop redundunt
products or closed down, due to new competting entrants in the market.

Even for 3d printers, there will be many different types with features, and the ink types. And 3d printing is NOT the EPITOME of technology. Many
million more advances awaits as we mankind build upon known science and tech to progress and evolve, as we had done for our 5000 years of recorded
history of our civilisation.

I find it disconcerting that some think robots that are created will look like Asimov's humaniod types that replaces humans. That is a fallacy and
even a wrong direction our young at schools must not take, as humaniods are NOT necessarily the best types for jobs which varies exponentially and the
need to figure costs.

-Do we create humaniod robot to repell down buildings to clean windows? No we don't. We create box-like light weight robots, armed with water vapour
jets and cleaning mechanisms, to crawl like a caterpiller on walls to clean skycrapers. Plenty of skycrapers around our world, with many different
feature types of such robots to be created in the free market.

-Do we create humaniod robot given a shovel to dig the ground? No we don't. We create a 'shovel' robot given paramenters to dig the controlled
volume necessary.

-Do we create humaniod robot given a broom to sweep the floor? No we don't. We create a small disc shaped robot with wheels and cleaning materials to
automatically sweep the floors.

- Do we create humaniod soldiers for battles? NO we don't. We create helicopter/hovering type small bullet proof ball-liked robots to move in jungles
and urban areas, to detect enemies and fire upon them when found.

When the 4 stroke combustion engine was discovered in the 18th century, many thought workers will be replaced. Workers were not replaced. It only cut
down on workers. Farming was a labour intensive enterprise, but with machines mounted with the combustion engine, it does the work of 20 men.

It then free up others to extrapoliate upon many other types of industries that can make use of the combustion engine, and soon, ships, aircrafts,
cars, etc filled our world - not replacing humans, but demanded even MORE humans to manage those industries.

So too will robots and 3d printers. Jobs abound as mankind grows and so too does demand and needs. So long as wealth is shared and circulated, NOT
hoarded up, progress is unlimited.

The discovery of electricity and switches were the basic foundations of computers and communications. Edison and Marconi would NEVER had imagine that
mankind could build upon those foundations to send robots to explore another planet controlled from Earth.

So too will some humans NOT being able to imagine what technology will be like a mere 10 years from now, let alone a hundred years, as they based
their comprehension on the current and not on the extrapoliation of current to the future based upon centuries old human nature.

It should not be looked at as being evil.. This is evolution of our species. After all, we be emerging with the machine one day,

Jobs are not guaranteed to anyone. They are only available when the need for a human to do them is occurring. Once a robot/ machine can do it, the
human(s) should be focusing on a new skill for the advancement of society, instead of redundantly doing something.

Robots/machines are here to add convinience to our lives. Robots bring costs down and they help eliminate liabilities that employers have to
constantly face. Once a robot does a job, it will free up time and energy for the humans to learn the next new thing.

The quickest takeover of human jobs will be /is the service industry. Fast food, customer service, cashiers and retail will be quickly taken over,
and more efficiently I might add, by the robot. There are already a few fast food chains that have been trying this new technology:

My question is why won't politicians be honest and explain that technology is indeed displacing the human worker and that it will not slow down.

People complain and ask, 'Where are all the jobs? Bring the jobs back!".

There are some jobs that robots can perform more efficiently and productively than humans, and the example you show is evident of that.

Some of the service industries only lead to dead ends for the human who seeks for a career path, or impoverise the employer when wages get sky high
without increases in productivity.

Thus, it would be better that such jobs be replaced by robots where possible, so that humans, many whom have better education nowadays, can be
directed to more progressive and evolutionary jobs with better pay and career prospects.

One of the problems why politicians are unable to bring back certain jobs is because either cheap labour or robots had replaced those jobs. And it
becomes the politicians failure if they as a class cannot anticipate and create conditions for more evolving jobs to replace those that are being
replaced, to help employment and evolution of society.

It may be due to political doctrines.

Under Capitalism ( if properly and responsibly regulated ) free enterprise will create jobs as they seek to compete with one another to survive, and
thus sharing of wealth, progress and evolution is possible. There is no limit on tech, on far it can go, and therefore, no company can claim they are
at the epitome of tech and can afford to slow down. If they do, another will arise and take over their position. Such is progress and evolution.

Under communism, ideas and innovation are often left to a select state controlled monopoly few, and very often, their theory is that if the wheel aint
broken, there's no need to fix it, and as a result when other nations evolve and progress on the free market, communists are left behind, using slave
labour to compete or stealing ideas to progress.

China and Russia realizes this, but they will fail if they do not eradicate corruption, and so does all other heavily corrupted nations on Earth,
because corruption cuts down on any tall poppies, cuts corners to produce, stifles innovation and generally seeks to control and monopolizes the
market.

We need not fear that robots will replace us. As tech and science advances, so too will mankind's needs and prospects.

For example:- let's say you and your family of three is given a land the size of USA to manage. How would you be able to do so with just the four of
you? Only through the use of different kinds of robots will you be able to manage that landmass using different applications for different aspects of
land, climate, environment, trade, etc management.

Look up to the stars and try to count how many stars are out there waiting for us mankind? Trillions out there. Mankind's destiny lays there, and one
day soon, our knowledge will advance to the level whereby we can traverse there without using even rockets.

Don't forget that technology also creates jobs as well as destroying them. There were, for example, no jobs in robotics in 1900. Or aerospace,
computers etc etc.

Whether there's been a net increase or decrease in employment due to technological advances since 1900 (taking the date pretty much at random) is
hard to say. A lot of the reason for higher unemployment is down to women entering the workplace.

It will be a double edge sword. May will lose jobs that the robots will be doing, but there will be jobs gained for fixing, programming, and
maintaining the robots ......until they finally get robots to that as well.

Those who can afford it, will have robots as household help, cooks, cleaning, general maintenance, driverless vehicles, etc.

I think it will ease up the population explosion as well. If you notice that first world countries that are educated, don't have 12 kids. Its usually
the less educated minorities or individuals with skewed philosophies or religious views who are the ones having 12+ kids.

So the US will taper off/balance out and there will be more time for people to do what they want to do, since robots will do most of the grunt
work.

I also wonder if A.I. will start creating music, writing books, running its own corporations, and eventually start taking over the world in a A.I.
versus human war ala Terminator.

Child bearing and its quantity are often based upon necessity and environment.

Our agarian ancestors had many children because that was the ancient way to get labour to help out in the farm. The rich have more so as to ensure
their line is protected and companies staffed with kins to ensure trust.

Today's middle classes desires for childrend quantity is based upon the environment - will it be fair to bring a child into our troubled world or
able to give them the best and opportunities in life to propagate mankind?

That's an issue the political class will have to ponder if they dont want to have economic problems such as those in Japan's greying population and
the mainstream religious organisations to resolve if they wish to hold true to their religious guidelines over abortion and homosexual issues.

Should robotics become a solution to better lives, then chances are, most parents will feel safe enough to want to bring more kids into our world.
Love is what drives us humanity all, more so the unconditional love that only children can give to their parents, and parents to do anything and
everything to protect their children.

We need not fear population explosion, for there truly is enough for all, in our ever expanding Universe. What we should fear is the ultilitarian
culling of our human species, either through abortion programmes or wars, for we will never know whom we may had destroyed. That baby human could have
grown up to become someone who might save our world economically, socially or technologically advances.

It is good to see the true future direction for mankind, but in the meantime, there are the high employment issues that need to be resolve so that we
acheive our progress and evolution sooner.

All it needs is the end of hoarding by the rich, for them to invest their funds into projects instead of gambling on wallstreet or property
speculations that drives prices beyond a new couple's desire for a roof over their heads to start a family, govts to initiate and help innovative
enterprises to take flight, education, infrastructure, circulation of money, etc.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.